Mathman, I suspect that the problem with the comment is that it's likely been translated twice: into French/Russian from English for the L'Equipe, and then back to English. I wouldn't dismiss concerns based on an odd turn of phrase.

So l'Equipe never saw the actual email, but only a translation of a translation of it? With an extra sentence tacked on after the "Ciao, Joe?" Then (as Seniorita put it ) they transferred it to an ancient papyrus to make it look authentic?

Did the newspaper interview any of the 60 people who actually recieved this email? Did they call Mr. Inman for comment? Did they make up some phony 5-year-old drug results, as Janetfan reminded us about in the Lance Armstrong situation? Did any other newspaper anywhere in the world do an investigation or write a story about this (not counting just copying the l'Equipe article) :thumbsdown:

Actually if i can judge the designer of the page, he should be fired cause:

1)This style of piece of paper they put the 'script' made the reliability of the article as yellow as it could be. Like they found it in a drawer and it is not an email. For all I know his next mail could be this(dont ask me where I found it, I have my sources as well)
2)The most hilarious of all, they sign his name below it with clear letters, like all this is an old quote of Oscar Wild.
3) AND there are much better pics of Evgeni and Brian at Europeans:boohoo:

on a happy note, same newspaper has an article of the comeback of schumaher and talks about the comeback of legends and yeap, throws plushy in there, well a least it made my euro worth it with that. No papyrus or transitions involved this time.

Maybe this judge favours plushenko over (abbott and lysacek) to win the mens in order for their team of davis/white to be favoured over doms/shabs in the dance. Hang on is this salt lake city scandal again!!

I personally think its scaremongering and skating propaganda.

Ok it happenned in the past but with the COP, the skaters need to perform on the night and they cant be held up with the marks right??. Ok I know the PCS marks are still suspect in this system, but the judges have not made there mind up with there 1, 2, 3 already.

Take no notice, it is probably Didier Galihaquet getting his own back??

So l'Equipe never saw the actual email, but only a translation of a translation of it? With an extra sentence tacked on after the "Ciao, Joe?" Then (as Seniorita put it ) they transferred it to an ancient papyrus to make it look authentic?

Did the newspaper interview any of the 60 people who actually recieved this email? Did they call Mr. Inman for comment? Did they make up some phony 5-year-old drug results, as Janetfan reminded us about in the Lance Armstrong situation? Did any other newspaper anywhere in the world do an investigation or write a story about this (not counting just copying the l'Equipe article) :thumbsdown:

No, and I might be wrong here about the chain of events.

1. L'Equippe saw the original email, and translated it into French.
2. Someone on the internet read L'Equippe with the translated (out of context) quotes and rougly translated it back to English

Now I don't know if this actually happened, but if it did, it could easily explain the oddness of the wording.

Using Google Translate on one of your comments, this is what happens

Initial Comment: Did the newspaper interview any of the 60 people who actually recieved this email?

Translation back to English: In fact the newspaper interview, any of the 60 people who have actually received this email?

Now, from comments made here and the general lack of buzz this is eliciting, it's clear that it's nothing (if the ISU takes corrective action or an ethics complaint is filed, I'll take that back), but I don't think an odd turn of phrase is the reason to dismiss this charge.

1. L'Equippe saw the original email, and translated it into French.
2. Someone on the internet read L'Equippe with the translated (out of context) quotes and rougly translated it back to English

In post #12 by Ximena on this thread is a scan of the actual article, including a close-up of the "email" in English.

Anyway, it is worse than that. There is no indication in the article that anyone at L'Equipe ever saw the email. Or for that matter, that Gailhaguet
did. The thrust of the article is simply a paranoid, oh those sneaky Ameicans, they're probably up to something.

Originally Posted by russell30

Maybe this judge favours plushenko over (abbott and lysacek) to win the mens in order for their team of davis/white to be favoured over doms/shabs in the dance. Hang on is this salt lake city scandal again!!

I like it! Maybe this is what people were referring to when they reported on the Russian boards that Piseev has "withdrawn political support for Domnina and Shabalin."

The articles on this are reading a lot more into it than was actually in the e-mail. Joe is keenly interested that the program components should be judged correctly, and that is all the e-mail is about. Joubert and Plushenko are mentioned by name only because Plushenko was quoted mentioning Joubert.

As a bit of back story, entirely separate from the e-mail, there has been a lot of discussion within the ISU the past year on how the components should be judged. A series of videos were created whose birthing were quite controversial. David Dore and Ted Barton were intimately involved with creating these. Plushenko's 2006 Olympic performance was a part of this controversy. And now, though he did not know it, Plushenko has basically said for that controversy, you know, the people who criticize us for having no transitions are right, we don't.

To me that is the interesting part of this. Many (myself included) are concerned whether the judges (how many really) will use reputation judging for the components and give high marks that are undeserved. It will be interesting to see who relies on reputation judging even after the skater himself says he has no transitions.

The articles on this are reading a lot more into it than was actually in the e-mail. Joe is keenly interested that the program components should be judged correctly, and that is all the e-mail is about. Joubert and Plushenko are mentioned by name only because Plushenko was quoted mentioning Joubert.

As a bit of back story, entirely separate from the e-mail, there has been a lot of discussion within the ISU the past year on how the components should be judged. A series of videos were created whose birthing were quite controversial. David Dore and Ted Barton were intimately involved with creating these. Plushenko's 2006 Olympic performance was a part of this controversy. And now, though he did not know it, Plushenko has basically said for that controversy, you know, the people who criticize us for having no transitions are right, we don't.

To me that is the interesting part of this. Many (myself included) are concerned whether the judges (how many really) will use reputation judging for the components and give high marks that are undeserved. It will be interesting to see who relies on reputation judging even after the skater himself says he has no transitions.

Good point. Here is an interview where he admits that he and Joubert have no transitions in their programs.

Of course, Mr.Inman's explanation is perfectly plausible ,as one might have predicted, based on his unbiased performance in the past , and his efforts to promote better judging. But, the press just Lu-u-rves them a good controversy , so they had to add that comment from Jamie ( of all people)...More fuel.

Last edited by colleen o'neill; 02-10-2010 at 01:15 AM.
Reason: Adding on

Of course, Mr.Inman's explanation is perfectly plausible ,as one might have predicted, based on his unbiased performance in the past , and his efforts to promote better judging. But, the press just Lu-u-rves them a good controversy , so they had to add that comment from Jamie ( of all people)...More fuel.

Would've been very naive to think nobody eager for a scandal on the NA side would pick up on that! How wonderul.. I wonder when someone is gonna point out the ridiculous marks some of the other skaters are getting under PCS apart from transitions. I guess never cos its so much easier to discuss transitions under the claim that its more objective. PCS is a big fat joke, even if transitions are observable, the range from 1 to 10 gives no real guidelines as to how to mark it. Its not like 20 transtions per programme is 10, 18 transitions is marked as 9 etc.. Its all subjective no matter how you want to see it.. PCS' weight must be reduced drastically.

Of course, Mr.Inman's explanation is perfectly plausible ,as one might have predicted, based on his unbiased performance in the past , and his efforts to promote better judging. But, the press just Lu-u-rves them a good controversy , so they had to add that comment from Jamie ( of all people)...More fuel.

It is sad, when a professional judge, and at his age, used a quote from unauthorized and unofficial record from a "commercial" press conference

I read and watched almost all Plushy's interviews last weeks - he really mentioned in several interviews, that he and Joubert are equally difficult transition, and that Jobert get more marks ... but this added sentence: "In fact, we don’t have any transitions because we focus on our jumps" ... there only on site:http://www.absoluteskating.com/inter...plushenko.html

To clarify - Plushenko not have any special interview for a newspaper, than it was press conference in Bratislava on 27th January, on the occasion of his show tour after the Olympics in Central Europe. At the conference was attended dozen TV crews and much more journalists, and only on the site of "Absolute Skating" appeared this "famous" Plushenko's sentence ....

I think that someone should ask first the journalists Titanilla Bőd, from where she got, Plushy's so the "exclusive" sentence, which nobody else not have? ... and then after, and the above mentioned judge, about the "level" of his arguments :indiff:

I think that someone should ask first the journalists Titanilla Bőd, from where she got, Plushy's so the "exclusive" sentence, which nobody else not have? ... and then after, and the above mentioned judge, about the "level" of his arguments :indiff:

Plushyta, it's actually ironic cos if my memory doesn't fool me, Titi is a big Jouby fan (if it's indeed the same person as on the Brian Joubert Discussion Group) so I cannot see why/how she would manipulate such a comment. :sheesh:
On the other hand it's too far-fetched to say they have no transitions at all, at least I can say so for Joubert as someone who has seen Jouby's programmes many times (I haven't paid too much attention to Plushenko's transitions or lack thereof while watching.) One can say he has definetely less transitions than some others like Lambiel, Abbott, Chan etc etc but they have tried to work some into the programme since last year. He has none in the beginning of his LP cos he prepares for 4T and an attempt at 4S. Hence, Plushy's "alleged" comment as to "because we have none" seems like out of context to me.. Maybe he was talking about the beginning passages of their programmes. I don't know.